Any rating system would have to be as objective as possible, IMO. Polling of any kind introduces the kind of uncertainty that fuels the kind of controversy that we're already discussing in this thread (and allowing participants within the pool to provide rankings leads to all kinds of foolishness -- like Clemson's unusually high standing in the US News & World Report college rankings).
The system I envision would be assigning points to teams exclusively for non-district wins based on the relative performance of their opponents in other games. (Basically you would get one point for every game that one of your non-district opponent wins). But that is also based on my proposal that postseason play should be limited to district champions, and this ratings system would only be used to resolve ties for district titles involving three or more teams.
I think that would be more of a headache than what it's worth. Only reason I say to give a district champ an automatic berth is because that, in itself, guarantees a chance for a playoff berth to nearly every team (as long as you are in a district, you have a chance). Outside of that, districts really only serve as little more than scheduling security.
Actually, for most of the era post 1970 districts functioned as the baseline for the entire competitive structure used to ultimately produce a state champion. That was a pretty efficient system, albeit brutally so. Some of its obvious shortcomings were an inability to address ties within districts and its relatively punitive effect upon one loss (or one tie) teams within relatively competitive geographic areas. But it left very little room for argument about the relative quality of the champions who emerged at each level -- unlike today.
To boil it down to basics....you win your district, you advance to regional playoffs. You win your region, you advance to state. Nothing complicated at all.
Another issue is that you may end up with a couple of those districts with just one or two good teams and then others that have 3-4 perennial “powerhouses”. Then you have superior teams left out of the playoffs due to being in a reputable district compared to others in a “weak” district who get in because they are lucky enough to not have to play a tough district schedule.
True, but I'm taking a somewhat Darwinian approach here. Only the strong survive. If you're unbeaten and untied, there's no argument. Anything less than that invites speculation. And the evidence of relatively weak districts on a geographic basis is also apparent -- and begins to play itself out at the regional level. It's one thing to be relatively "superior" or to be the champion of a "weak" district. It's another to demonstrate that you are absolutely the best team in a region and deserve to advance to play at the state level -- which should logically be a fundamental element of any playoff system, IMO.
This kind of approach seemed to work out well in basketball (until the VHSL actually meddled with it and started rewarding a significant number of also-rans with advancement).
What if the VHSL adopted and enforced a classification and scheduling model based strictly on district membership which would serve as the basis for postseason play? In fact, postseason eligibility could be based exclusively on performance within district play (although some ratings system would continue to track the value of non-district competition as well to address potential tiebreaker situations).
Within each classification, establish a requirement that all districts contain an equitable number of members (either 6 or 7). Then group them into four regions containing an equitable number of districts within each. Establish a policy in which a team's first three or four games of the season are specifically dedicated to non-district play, then require everyone to play within their district thereafter (with the possibility of an additional non-district game at the end for teams in a 6 team district). If everyone is under the same specific scheduling requirements, that would make non-district scheduling a bit easier in terms of simple logistics. Keep a "bye" week in place between the end of the regular season and the beginning of regional playoffs for district "tiebreaker" games when that type of situation occurs (and in the event of three-way ties, participants in the district tiebreaker could be the two teams with the highest overall competition ratings). Then have district champions play each other at the regional level with the four regional champions advancing to the state semifinals.
Wouldn't necessarily address the issue of teams with 4 losses (or 5, in some cases) making the playoffs, but there wouldn't seem to be as much controversy associated with methodology either.
Other down side is that this would require more than a little administrative work to implement and track. But well-written policies would reduce the need for grunt work.
It's a funny thing how it was the same for us. Didn't matter if you lost all other games just beat Richlands. One year Richlands was our only win in football 12-10 02 or 03 I think. We sucked but we won the most important game.
Odd bit is never had a terrible experience with Richlands people just in school there was always the feeling of we hate them no matter what. Only half way bad thing is some fans called me out when I sat on their side and said why don't you sit on your own side. I said look over there do you see any seats? Other than a few dirty looks that was about all.
Had all kinds of friends from Tazewell (and still do, come to that). Also never really had any bad experiences with anyone there. Interacted frequently with Bulldog folk on a social level throughout my growing up years. Have no problem whatsoever cheering for THS in any sport at the playoff level. (Still just as proud as anyone of that '86 state championship earned by the 'Dawgs -- and I was even back then.) Overall I recognize that it's still a great community and there are several folks there (and from there) that I will always love dearly.
But would I ever consider sending my own kids to school at THS? Never. Never in a million years.
A very strange and highly nuanced level of hatred, to be sure.
and they threw us out...........not just of the game, but the tournament for a couple of years !
So we had a rival in the Coppinger for a while. They finally let the Blues back in the tournament a couple of years later.
Oh, and this is just more proof to my previous point that everyone seemed to have an irrational hatred of Richlands. Not being paranoid in hindsight -- the whole world was actually conspiring against us. :-)
" Altizer lost his mind ( which he would do from time to time )"
Say it ain't so!
Johnny is one of the finest gentlemen I've ever had a chance to know, and his family and mine have been the dearest of friends for as long as I've been on this earth. But I have to confess that I always enjoyed it just a little bit when he got really wound up. That must have been a particularly great episode -- sorry I missed it (or simply don't recall it).
Richlands and.... everybody. During my formative years it seemed that every opponent was particularly hostile to us (even when we weren't particularly good -- which didn't make much sense). But maybe that was just the nature of the old SWD.
The hatred of Richlands was somewhat understandable in basketball. During the successful stretch beginning in 1982/83 we were beating teams more often than not. And at home games we had a student section (the Krazy Korner) that was deliberately obnoxious. But sometimes we were on the receiving end of animosity from sources that also didn't immediately make a lot of sense -- specifically Virginia High, Lebanon (although that subsided once they moved from the old gym in Cleveland), and Patrick Henry.
Otherwise there were specific sports and programs that had particular rivals. Probably like everyone else, Grundy was the primary target in wrestling (although that was probably one sided because the Golden Wave usually had bigger fish to fry than any of us). Band (yeah, seriously) bore some specific animosity toward John Battle and Pulaski County. Graham was usually the measuring stick for both tennis teams. And although it's not a specific example per se, our performance in the Coppinger Tournament was always a big deal in baseball.
Tazewell was always the main rival in all sports. Graham and Grundy (due to proximity and long histories with each) were also targets of widespread scorn. But the fun thing about those rivalries was that as much as we would beat the tar out of each other on the field/court and absolutely hated the thought of losing to those guys, we all had pretty good friendships outside of the actual contests and rivalries. (And on a personal note, I still crack up when I remember how Cary Perkins would make a big show of turning off his hearing aids before he approached the free throw line.)
The last Regional game that I have seen was the 1951 game. From then until 1965 there were none and then in 1965-1969 they at the lower levels they were only half state championships. The AAA schools started playing playoff games in 1965 but only one round. If there were still undefeated teams after that round they were declared co state champions. There were no regional playoff games from 1952 to 1965 so no team had any opportunity to compete for even mythical state championships then. Then leaves great teams of the era (Narrows, Gate City, Appalachia) on the outside looking in. Narrows was undefeated from 1961 through 1963 (9-0) all three years beating larger schools at Christiansburg, Blacksburg, Radford and all across the New River Valley and they never got to play in a playoff game.
Good point. I had in mind the fact that Bedford claimed a state championship by beating another regional champion, but upon further inspection that was in 1940. There was another instance in which another regional (or half state) champion refused to play the Otters in a year when they won their district title.
I'm a bit perplexed as to why the situation from 1952 to 1965 (and even 1965 to 1969) was tolerated by fans, coaches, and the media. But I suppose it is similar to the manner in which college football functioned prior to the current playoff system.
I just meant Appy playing against schools at their own level. Teams like Hampton and other No. Va. schools would have been too tough for anyone in our area but it would've been fun to see Clark against that competition.
True. The reclassification of 1970 was a tremendous boost in leveling the playing field while offering everyone a path to a state championship that still had real meaning and cachet. For that reason, I think the discussion ought to be framed in terms of "best since 1970," because there are easily defined metrics to support specific arguments.
And under those terms, I'd still offer Appalachia, Gate City, and Powell Valley (in no particular order) as the three most consistently successful SW Virginia teams during their existence in what we might then define as the "modern era."
Graham, Giles, Radford, and Pulaski County definitely warrant mention in the discussion as well. Richlands, Abingdon, Narrows, George Wythe, and Tazewell also have strong arguments to make for specific runs within the era.
I'll have to agree with you an Appalachia if there were playoffs going back 15-20 years you could add 4 or 5 state titles. Appy had a 5 year run from 1965-1969 were they went 47-2-1 and 2-2-1 vs gate city being their only blemishes and no one out east was going to stop Edd Clark
There is evidence to suggest that regional champions were recognized in Group II (or Group B -- or whatever the level was below Division 1). And occasionally the Eastern and Western champions would play for a "state championship" if the two schools involved would agree to do so. That makes the "if there were playoffs" argument hard to frame and defend.
Apparently Appalachia was either not recognized by the media as a regional champion within Group II even when they were undefeated, or they didn't attempt to make arrangements to play a postseason game to determine a "state championship" when they did. Either way, it is apparent that Appalachia never made the commitment to play at a level that offered a recognized state championship prior to 1970. Which is a shame, because it certainly would have been interesting to see the Stonega Stallion match up against the very best in the Commonwealth.
Fun fact.... The Bulldogs did play Richlands in 1951 for something akin to a "regional championship" after the conclusion of their regular postseason. But the Blues won that contest 13-6.
5 State Titles since 1970, BUT.....forget about these for a minute. Let me give some numbers that will surprise you before 1970. From 1956 to 1969 for Gate City High (14 seasons), there were 3 undefeated teams during this time for Gate City that were the best in Va. They simply were not AA and don't have a title to show for it. These teams were dominant for that era. Gate City had another 3 teams in those 14 seasons with only 1 loss, and the rest of those seasons, there were a few 2 loss only seasons. If we could measure titles like we do today or since 1970, Gate City High would have 8 titles, and maybe even 10. This is what makes Appalachia underrated. Appy has been very good (before combining with PV) for a long, long time, and I mean, back to the 1950's. PV/Big Stone had a great run of about 18 years, but they were not as dominant for as long. Even Shoemaker High (now GC High) was a powerhouse for years dating back well into the 1930's. Finally, look at the Gate City runner up finishes over the years. It's incredible. Win looking at total wins and winning percentage and playoff wins, and the rest, Gate City is the best High School Football Program in SWVA historically. This of course, is only my opinion.
Gate City actually competed as a member of the SWD (and therefore Division 1) for one season -- 1960. Then they dropped back to the lower classification that had no recognized state title. There's no reason to speculate about how many titles GC could have won, because they made the conscious (and probably very reasonable) decision not to compete for the recognized state championship of that era -- with the possible exception of 1960.
And although reasonable minds may differ, the very best in SW Virginia typically paled in comparison to the big schools in Richmond, Tidewater, and NoVa even back in the 1950s and 1960s. What I didn't mention before is that the only state title won by a SW Virginia school from 1920 to 1970 (Graham in 1962) was awarded after Andrew Lewis was forced to vacate a victory over the G-Men that year.
Gate City and Powell Valley stand out as the top two in terms of an "all-time" perspective. I give particular weight to the two state titles that they each won in the 1970-1985 time period. Appalachia was consistently good throughout its existence as well, so it's easy for me to identify the Bulldogs as a not-distant #3.
I'm oddly ambivalent about including Richlands in this discussion. The current era of high performance (roughly 2000-present) has certainly been a source of pride and joy. But before 2000, the program overall had a W/L record hovering right around .500 (and the 1970's and 1980's were actually very bad in that regard).
And I think Graham might be extremely underappreciated in this discussion. With rare exceptions, the G-Men have fielded a competitive product on the gridiron consistently since they started playing back in the 1920's. Graham was the only SW Virginia school to win a state title in football prior to the 1970 reclassification . And if they had actually been participating in Group A (and the subsequent Divisions 1 and 2) instead of playing up for as many years as they did after 1970, it's not hard to imagine that they would have acquired even more state and regional hardware than they already possess.
Those are my immediate thoughts with regard to the "all time" discussion. If we want to limit it to the era that began in 1970, I can think of several schools that belong in the discussion. But it wouldn't change my observations in this post very much.
Silver is still a school color and should be used more in my opinion. That being the case, I would much rather have silver helmets as my 2nd than white. I remember the all silver unis with a silver helmet back in the 90's and those are one of my all time favorite in school history.
I would also love to see a full color pic of the old Carolina Blue unis they used to wear back in the 60's.
Richlands has kind of an unusual uniform history. The "blue" of the Ernie Hicks era was a lighter shade (similar to Columbia, Carolina, and/or Honolulu for various sports at various times). Once he retired, then there started to be some variation.
In football, Jim Hammond seemed to prefer Navy Blue with liberal amounts of red trim. Although there was also one set of uniforms in at least the mid '70s that was light blue (with red numerals) which was part of the rotation. Todd Heldreth instituted Navy and White as official colors (and essentially did so for all sports in his role as athletic director) when he arrived in 1979. Billy Haun added a considerable amount of gray in his last season (1990). Then Dennis Vaught morphed that into silver with his arrival. Near as I can figure, since the switch from leather helmets, white is actually the color of the lids that Richlands has worn most frequently.
Basketball kept the lighter shade of blue up through Jack Lyons' first tenure in the late '70s. Red was introduced into those uniforms as well along the mid '70s. I believe the first Navy and White uniforms were introduced in 1980 (under the tenure of Coach Heldreth as AD). Columbia Blue was used as an accent for a few years under Reggie Blevins and Jack Lyons. Then it was back to Navy and White until Tom Rife introduced silver/gray into the mix.
Baseball uniforms in the 1970's (around the time the program was resurrected, apparently) had a similar motif to the football team. Mostly navy and white with heavy accents of red. Johnny Altizer brought in gray uniforms with Navy as the primary shade of blue in the early 1980's. Not sure that this was an effort to introduce gray as a school color so much as the fact that gray is a traditional road color for baseball.
One other random thought about gray.... During the 1980's there was apparently a nationwide trend to wearing gray pants in football. Most notable example I can think of is ETSU, who wore them for a couple of years even though I don't think that's ever been an official color of the Bucs. During most of their '80s glory days, Tazewell donned the gray britches with green and yellow stripes (and it was a sharp look, IMO) -- but I don't think gray was ever part of their official scheme either. Not sure why Colobro went there -- I figure it was either influenced by his dad's association with Concord or he was mimicking Graham. Graham's use of gray always seemed clever to me, because I understand the distinction of academic and athletic colors there.
Sorry to ramble. Just an odd stream of consciousness this morning.
You sure that started in '78?? I thought there were two teams from each district in 1976...I guess I could be mistaken...
Yep. Kinda surprised by that discovery myself. But there is a really good site put together by a Pulaski County supporter that provides great documentation of football playoff results in all classifications. Info for 1977 can be found at the following link:
All SWD members played each other from the time the VHSL realignment was normalized through 1979. The 9 game district slate only allowed for one non-district match up, which was tight for some folks but accommodated longstanding rivalries for most others.
The addition of Lebanon changed everything. While it would have been simple for everyone in the SWD to play an exclusive district slate, there was no agreement to do so. Graham didn't want to give up its game with Bluefield. Same story with Virginia High's annual game with Tennessee High. From 1980 through 1985, the solution was that there was one SWD team (chosen at random, I believe) that you wouldn't play -- or that wouldn't count in the district standings if you actually did play them. No fault of the Lebanon folks -- they simply had to go where they were slotted -- but that was the beginning of the end.
Graham, Tazewell, Richlands, Grundy, Marion, Patrick Henry, Abingdon, John Battle, Virginia High, Gate City, and Lebanon (for a few years). I think it was Abingdon and Gate City that represented the SWD in '77 with V-High on the outside.
Better memories than mine can correct me, but I think the Virginia High team referenced in the discussion was the 1975 version. Gate City represented the SWD in the playoffs that year. (From 1970 through 1977, only the champions of the New River and Southwest districts advanced to the regional championship with the winner moving on to state. Runners-up were added to the mix effective with the 1978 season.)
Either way, I concur with GC Hoke.... The old SWD was a tremendous league. And winning a district championship in that setup in any sport was a major accomplishment.
WARNING/DISCLAIMER: Cranky old man rant to follow.
My objection to VHSL Alignment as it is current practiced (and as it has been practiced since 1986) is that it has diminished the level of competition and meaning associated with state championships and competition in general.
I realize that the demographics of Virginia have changed considerably within the last 50 years. But using the current number of schools from that article, 60% of all schools within the VHSL will qualify for postseason resulting in state champions who can ultimately claim to be the best team in a pool of 48-55 qualifiers. District and regional (newly restored) championships have very little meaning. And teams that are "fortunate" enough to make it to postseason very often find themselves facing multi-hour bus trips to play in the beginning round.
Contrast that to the old three classification system in which 30% of schools at best would even qualify for postseason play (in regions that allowed for 8 playoff teams -- most only allowed for 4, which means that only about 15% of schools would make it). Sure there were some hard luck examples of 9-1 football teams who sat home in November, but making it to the postseason at all was a major accomplishment in and of itself that had real meaning. And missing out on the playoffs by losing 1 game was a true benchmark indicating that only the best of the best made it. The district and region structure also contributed to that sense of accomplishment. Winning championships at either of those levels carried a very tangible and definable cachet -- beyond the fact that you just couldn't advance without winning them. And the contests at the state level were true inter-sectional match ups that further promoted identity and accomplishment. Ironically enough, travel hardships were unusual and limited to the highest performing teams because of the regional- and district-based structure (there were extremes under the old system -- the most glaring example I can think of was a trip Clintwood took to Onancock). But ultimately before 1986, state champions knew that they were the best in a pool of over 100 teams.
Given the disparity in school sizes that began to be apparent in the mid 1980s, it does seem that some appropriate action could have been taken. Adding a fourth classification would have diluted the competitive level (reducing Class pools from 100 to about 80), but not at the ridiculous level that the six class system has. The steady abandonment of the district and region promotion hierarchy has only served to further exacerbate the issue.
Winning a state championship is still cause for celebration. But because of my long memory, I have to admit that the current context pales in comparison to the old system, and it doesn't mean as much as it once did. And regional and district titles have become about as valuable as participation trophies.
Can vouch about Big Creek from my experience of going there for a football game. I had a custom van back when the Blues last played the Creek ( I think is was around 77 to 79, can't quite remember) and I had some friends ride over with me to watch the game. When we came out after the game, one of my side mirrors was broken and my door was keyed. My van had a nice paint job too, man I was so angry it was probably a good thing I didn't find or see who had done it.
I had had issues at some other away games before, mostly mouthy fans, but never had my vehicle messed with. Anyways, my insurance fixed it, but that was over the top and I never took my Van to an away game again after that.
Last game in the RHS-Big Creek series was in 1982 at War. Owls had no answer for Sandy Rogers and Blues won 24-12. My then 11 year old self was happy to leave without experiencing physical harm and/or damage to our family's property.
Rough, rough place to play. Couldn't tell you what the field conditions were like, but it was rough in the stands and in the parking lot.
If Mitchell Stadium isn't your #1 choice, there are three possibilities. One, you've never been, in which case I would demand you go on the fourth Friday in August. Two, you've suffered a traumatic brain injury that has robbed you of your memory of how wonderful it is, in which case you have my sympathies and prayers for recovery. Three, you're wrong, and you need to repent of your foolishness.
Mitchell Stadium doesn't move the needle for me in a hugely positive way. While it's a perfectly fine venue in every way for playing games and it's (obviously) durable, the only thing that really commends it is the relative scale compared to other area venues. And unless things have changed, the men's room experience at Mitchell still stands out as little more than an opportunity to urinate on an interior wall rather than the less socially acceptable practice of relieving oneself along the exterior.
Admittedly, the fact that I can only recall witnessing one Richlands victory on that field during my entire growing up years might be clouding my judgement just a wee bit.
Posted
·
Edited by RichlandsAlum Added brief new insight
50 minutes ago, UVAObserver said:
(1) Mount View. Never have I seen a crowd shower an opposing marching band with beer bottles, beer cans, and tins of snuff. And the dilapidated bleachers built onto an unsteady rock face are a sheer hazard, no matter how one looks at it. The field was never adequately cut, especially if your team was faster than Mount View. And after about 2 quarters, those poop brown and baby turd yellow uniforms are a visual nuisance. Just an absymal setting, and this comes from a fan whose team slaughtered Mount View.
Had occasion to visit that field back in 2015 as part of a commemoration of the old Welch-Gary rivalry. Among other things that struck me, the responsible parties have apparently given up on maintenance to the point that they stopped trying to cut the vines growing down into the stands from the hillside. They had actually constructed a chain-link fence along the bottom quarter of the existing stands (which is probably all they really need in terms of attendance) and allowed the vines to take over.
My youngest son was the only member of my household who accompanied me on that trip with my parents. It definitely made a major impression on him -- and I think I'll just leave it at that.
As for Mount View's color scheme.... Among the seemingly endless poor decisions made by the leadership of The County, that choice of brown and gold is yet another one that makes you ask, "What were they thinking?"
Richlands-Tazewell: I know it hasn't meant much lately but this goes back to 1926. Played every year but 1943 when the war caused the board to drop teams at Tazewell and Richlands. For whatever reason Tazewell has always put more emphasis on the Richlands game than Graham.
The reason probably has something to do with the fact that Graham has historically been pummeling both Tazewell and Richlands and/or they've been too preoccupied with Beaver to give a lot of thought to other rivalries.
The Blues-Dawgies rivalry has lost some of its luster since the two programs took on such radically different trajectories this century. It was a fun level of hatred once upon a time. For instance, we started the 1984 football season 1-5 but a lot of folks weren't terribly upset because the one win was against Tazewell. The long drought in the series immediately thereafter is a stain that three different graduating classes (including mine) bear shamefully.
And on a personal note, one of my best friends just married a Tazewell grad. She's a lovely gal, I'm happy for them, and I certainly wish them all the best. But I've got to be honest in that I'm struggling more than a little bit with accepting this "mixed marriage." And I still have a general aversion to green as a primary color for any athletic team.
1. Clinchco (Haysi/Ervinton) -- Seen many a classic Region D tournament game over the years, as well as quite a few of the Haysi/Council games in the peak of the rivalry.
2. Lebanon -- Very nice gym, plenty of seating.
3. Lee High -- This gym was a pleasant surprise when I visited for the first time last year... something about the murals painted on the wall was a nice touch. Very spacious also. Plenty of seating.
4. Castlewood -- Another gym which delivered very raucous atmospheres back in the good ole Region D tournament days.
5. Bearcat Den (Virginia High) -- Seats on all four sides of the court. Love the very NBA like player intros especially with the Undertaker theme playing for the home team intros.
I always liked Castlewood as well. Good facility that was very well maintained.
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Richlands final record predictions?
in SWVA Football
Posted
Any rating system would have to be as objective as possible, IMO. Polling of any kind introduces the kind of uncertainty that fuels the kind of controversy that we're already discussing in this thread (and allowing participants within the pool to provide rankings leads to all kinds of foolishness -- like Clemson's unusually high standing in the US News & World Report college rankings).
The system I envision would be assigning points to teams exclusively for non-district wins based on the relative performance of their opponents in other games. (Basically you would get one point for every game that one of your non-district opponent wins). But that is also based on my proposal that postseason play should be limited to district champions, and this ratings system would only be used to resolve ties for district titles involving three or more teams.